MHB ANSWER CHECK: Sum of Double Integrals involving Polar Conversion

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on solving a double integral using polar coordinates, where the initial approach mistakenly ignored the original xy function, leading to an incorrect area calculation. After recognizing the oversight, the correct method involved converting the xy function to polar coordinates, resulting in a final answer of 15. The integration region was clearly defined, bounded by specific curves in both Cartesian and polar coordinates. The correct integral setup was confirmed, validating the second approach. Ultimately, the verification affirmed that the answer of 15 was accurate.
Pull and Twist
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Here is the given problem...

View attachment 6022

And I first approached it by drawing the xy footprint to get my theta and radius limits to convert to polar.

Then I overlooked the original xy function and pretty much took the area of that footprint (highlighted in green.) That gave me a very nice number.

Later I realized that I should have converted xy into polar as well as the object is probably intended to have varying density (highlighted in red.) With that approach I got the answer 15. Also a nice clean number.

Can anyone verify that the second answer is correct or am I approaching this the wrong way?

Thanks.

View attachment 6023

And here's the footprint I drew...
View attachment 6024
 

Attachments

  • calc4prob1-given_web.jpg
    calc4prob1-given_web.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 84
  • calc4prob1_web.jpg
    calc4prob1_web.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 82
  • calc4prob1footprint.jpg
    calc4prob1footprint.jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 82
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, why "ignore xy"?? Obviously that will change the answer!. The region over which you are integrating- what you call the "footprint"- is the region bounded below by the x-axis, y= 0, or \theta= 0 in polar coordinates, above by y= x, \theta= \frac{\pi}{4} in polar coordinates, on the left by the circle x^2+ y^2= 4, r= 2 in polar coordinates, and on the right by the circle x^2+ y^2= 16, r= 5 in polar coordinates. To integrate over that region in polar coordinates integrate \int_0^{\pi/4}\int_2^4 f(r, \theta) r dr d\theta where "f(r, \theta)" is xy in polar coordinates.

Yes, 15 is the correct answer!

Added for those who might be interested (and because I just can't resist):
In polar coordinates, x= r cos(\theta) and y= r sin(\theta) so xy= r^2 sin(theta)cos(\theta).

The integral becomes \int_0^{\pi/4}\int_2^4 r^2 sin(\theta)cos(\theta) (r dr d\theta). Since the integrand is just a product of functions of r, r^3, and \theta, sin(\theta)cos(\theta), and the limits of integration are constants, we can separate that integral as \left(\int_0^{\pi/4}sin(theta)cos(\theta)d\theta\right)\left(\int_2^4 r^3 dr\right).

The second integral is obviously \int_2^4 r^3 dr= \left[\frac{1}{4}r^4\right]_2^4= 64- 4= 60.

To do the first integral, let u= sin(\theta) so that du= cos(\theta)d\theta. When \theta= 0, u= sin(0)= 0 and when \theta= \pi/4, u= 1/\sqrt{2} so we have \int_0^{\pi/4} sin(theta)cos(\theta)d\theta= \int_0^{1/\sqrt{2}} u du= \left[\frac{1}{2}u^2\right]_0^{1/\sqrt{2}}= \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)= \frac{1}{4}.

So the original integral is \frac{60}{4}= 15
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
Okay, why "ignore xy"?? Obviously that will change the answer!. The region over which you are integrating- what you call the "footprint"- is the region bounded below by the x-axis, y= 0, or \theta= 0 in polar coordinates, above by y= x, \theta= \frac{\pi}{4} in polar coordinates, on the left by the circle x^2+ y^2= 4, r= 2 in polar coordinates, and on the right by the circle x^2+ y^2= 16, r= 5 in polar coordinates. To integrate over that region in polar coordinates integrate \int_0^{\pi/4}\int_2^4 f(r, \theta) r dr d\theta where "f(r, \theta)" is xy in polar coordinates.

Yes, 15 is the correct answer!

I didn't mean to ignore it... and obviously I realized I did after the fact... then I second guessed myself.

Thank you for verifying that I took the correct approach the second time around.
 
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K